Tag Archives: Tree Ordinance

In an earlier post, written while I was on vacation, I reported on a proposed development at the so-called Villa De Grip property, located near the intersection of North Highland Avenue and Elizabeth Street, across the street from the restaurants Sotto Sotto and Fritti.

Here’s a screenshot of the plan, showing the addition of a proposed new building on the corner of North Highland and Copenhill, as well as a new multistory parking deck at the rear of the property.

An aerial view of the property indicates clearly how much tree cover will be affected by the construction of the new building and parking deck:

Atlanta’s existing tree protection ordinance will almost certainly not stand in the way of this project. Consistent with the ordinance, the developers are proposing to replace these native, over-story tree species (water oak, sweet gum, winged elm, loblolly pine, etc.) mostly with non-native, smaller (trident maple) and mid-canopy species (e.g., Chinese elm). What they cannot replace, they will write a check for, according to a simple formula¹ that treats all trees the same, whether they’re trees that might live 30 years or trees that can live 200+ years.²

What might a different approach to tree and urban forest protection involve? Let’s imagine, via some ideas that other cities have already implemented and others that Atlanta tree advocates are presently discussing: Continue reading Think Big, Atlanta, or Go Home→

Think that one tree in your back yard may be dead? Concerned about an ailing tree in your front yard or sidewalk planting strip? Frustrated that there’s a healthy but humongous tree growing three feet from the foundation of your house?

In 2005, an arborist delivered some bad news to the developers of Marble Lofts on Dekalb Avenue. He reported that in his professional judgment, a large southern red oak (Quercus falcata) on the site would probably not survive the impending construction. The city’s arborist agreed and put up a notice of his intent to issue a permit for the tree’s removal.

Thanks to Atlanta’s progressive tree ordinance, however, an adjacent homeowner was given adequate time to appeal the city arborist’s decision. That man reached out to Tree Watch, which saw merit in his appeal and decided to work with him to make his case.

In the end, the neighbor won his case before the Tree Conservation Commission. Fortunately for the tree, the developers opted not to appeal the commission’s decision to superior court. Instead, with some slight adjustments in the site design, their construction had a smaller impact on the tree than they had feared.

All’s well that ends well! Here’s a picture of that tree, more than a decade after an Inman Park resident made an effort to rescue it.